Irwin Schiff, Patriot
Posted on 06/04/2013 9:45:02 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
I also see a potential for certain necessities that should be exempt would have the same problem ie manufacturers lobbying for exemption.
Don't get me wrong, I would defiantly support over the current illegal tax con, er I mean code. Great post BTW!
Aldrich was there at Jekyll Island for the secret meetings that spawned the private, for profit corporation known as the Federal Reserve. I doubt he worked very hard to scuttle the income tax. ALL the money generated by the income tax goes to the Federal Reserve, to pay them for the use of our own currency plus interest.
Get rid of the income tax but don't replace it with anything. 90% of government spending is unconstitutional anyway. If they need any money beyond what can raised be from tariffs, duties, and excise taxes then they can ask for voluntary donations. If it really is important people with be glad to give.
Ah. The precursor to sequestration.
The 16th Amendment does not make an income tax legal.
Rather, a tax on wages is an indirect tax already permitted.
There was a supreme court case on a tax on rent on property. The court properly held that a tax on rent for a property was close enough to a tax on property to be considered a direct tax, and thus only legal if levied in proportion to population.
The 16th Amendment permitted a tax on income, from what ever source, overriding that supreme court decision.
Excellent reminder..
The people did not originally surrender their income to the federal government. In essence that is what an income tax does, you give all your income to the government and it allows you to keep some of what you make (sound familiar? Obama, were gonna let the middle class keep more of what they make). No longer should we look at a tax rate, but rather a income return rate. The federal government doesn't tax you 25%, it gives you 75% of what you earned. At this point, it can't even be considered your income.
But the Marxism argument now goes further thanks to the Supreme court. Now the government can force behavior not by unconstitutional mandate, but by constitutional TAX.
Time for the FAIR TAX- take the power away from the government- repeal the 16th amendment.
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied (emphasis added). … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
So I'll argue that the federal government can get as corrupt as it wants to. After all, not only was the federal government the toy of the rich which commoners weren't paying for, but our pioneering ancestors had their guns to protect themselves from Congress.
Also, consider that not only did the wealthy founders possibly intend for the wealthy to help police federal government spending to keep their taxes low, but also taking Congress's Article I, Section 8-limited powers into consideration, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress could not officially address under Section 8.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So although there is now an understandable push for fair taxes, I not only like the idea that, historically, our ancestors not only did not pay federal taxes, but there was also Justice Marshall's long-forgotten precedent that Congress cannot lay taxes for anything that it cannot justify under its Section 8-limited powers. So I say let the federal government once more become the play toy of the rich, the rich uniquely paying federal taxes, Congress allowed to ignore Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes to whatever extent the rich are willing to tolerate.
The 16th Amendment did not override the previous Supreme Court decision.
The 16th Amendment removed the founder's wise protection against direct taxation. The 16th Amendment removed the provision to levy taxes in proportion to the population.
The 16th Amendment did not override the Supreme Court decision.
The 16th Amendment removed the founder's wise protection against direct taxation. The 16th Amendment removed the provision to levy taxes in proportion to the population.
I know that the income tax is supposed to be an indirect tax
The Income Tax is and is supposed to be a direct tax. The 16th Amendment removed the provision in Article 1. Section 9. calling for “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”.
Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The easiest way to explain is that prior to the 16th Amendment if the government wanted to incur a $50 million expenditure they would tax the state’s $50 Million. If the population were 50 Million then the tax would be $1 each paid by the state. A truly remarkable system of taxation. Imagine today when the Congress is noodleing over $300 Billion program knowing that each citizen would be paying $1000. I think a lot more thought would go into the spending than it does now.
Only for taxes derived from income from what ever source.
A tax on most income is and was an indirect tax, not affected by the constitutional restriction on direct taxes.
The money already accumulated by John D. Rockefeller et al would not have been ‘income’ either. It would have been accumulated. Money gained from interest on that accumulation could have been taxed as income, and should be.
A lot of people don’t understand the difference between direct and indirect taxes.
Direct tax is directly on you. An example is a poll tax, or a tax on property that you own.
An indirect tax is a tax on activity. Wages are derived from the activity of work. Per the 16th Amendment, taxes can be derived from income, from what ever source. This practically has the effect of treating all taxes on income as an indirect tax. Direct taxes, such as fines on property you already have, or money you already made, would be a direct tax.
I submit that one argument against Obamacare is its tax is not based on activity, and so must be apportionied by population.
That was not yet so argued, to my knowledge and belief. Since it was ruled constitutional ‘as a tax’ then it could be overturned by a mere majority of the Senate, not subject to filibuster, and it would be subject to the constitutional limitations on direct taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service -- as Irwin Schiff explains -- is merely the fist that smashes one's face. It is our corrupt judiciary and congress (think Chuck Shumer and Al Franken) that give this agency carte blanche t0 do all sorts of illegal activity.
It was my pleasure to spend some time with Irwin at one of the rallies for Tupper Saussy during Tupper’s tax trial in Chattanooga.
Bookmark.
A federal boot lick defending the 16th amendment. How unexpected....
Rather, someone with education, sharing his advantages with the less fortunate.
So now the conspiracy is all the members of congress and all the members of the judciary, as well as all the members of the IRS.
Boy, those guys sure know how to keep a secret. We are really lucky that you are smart enough to figure it out and tell us about it. / sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.